Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/448/2020

Sumit Gulati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhagat Ford - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Chaudhary & Gautam Pathania

16 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/448/2020
Date of Institution	:	13/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	16/05/2023

 

Sumit Gulati S/of Sh.Anil Kumar Gulati, R/o House No.1642, Sector 80, Mohali, Punjab-140308.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Bhagat Ford, No.53, Industrial Area Phase-2, Chandigarh-160002.
2. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Plot No.142, Chimes 142, Sector 44, Gurugram, Haryana-122003.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Akhil Singh Arora, Vice Counsel for Sh.Harjot Singh Bedi, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	OP No.2 ex-parte.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased Ford Eco sport 1.5 titanium MT Diesel car from OP having it dealer in Chandigarh for a total sum of Rs.7,50,000/- only after the assurance given by the executives of OP that the vehicle fulfilled all the safety norms on all aspects while driving. On 16.07.2019 when the complainant was driving his car from Mohali to Pathankot for official work, the complainant met with an accident in a place called Damtal nar Pathankot. The accident was such a massive that it was declared total loss by the insurance company (Annexure C-2). As per complainant, even though the massive accident the car was in total loss but the airbags of the car didn’t open and due to that the complainant faced several injuries. It is not possible at any cost that after a massive accident and after declaring the said vehicle  in a total loss, not even a single bag was opened at the time of the accident which shows manufacturing defect related to airbags in the said vehicle. The complainant was in continue communication with the OP company North Sales Head for the justification that why the air bags of the car was not deployed, but till date the complainant has not received even a single reply. The complainant purchased this car on the huge assurances raised on safety purposes but on the date of accident the complainant and his family saved by the grace of God or otherwise he could have lost his life due to the manufacturing defect vehicle in question. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs, but till date not even a single reply was received by the complainant. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.   
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant has only purchased the vehicle from OP Noddf.1 and thereafter, there has been no fault in the vehicle and neither any reported by the complainant. It is only when the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and the air bags did not open he is alleging manufacturing defect for which only the manufacturer is liable and the dealer. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed qua OP No.1. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OP No.1.
3.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.2 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.2 despite following proper procedure, therefore it was proceeded ex-parte on 18.03.2021.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for OP No.1 and gone through the record of the case.
7.     On perusal of the complaint, it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant is that during massive accident of his vehicle, the airbags did not open, even declaring the vehicle as total loss and claimed that this shows that the vehicle had manufacturing defect relating to airbags.
8.     The stand of the OP No.1 is that the complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle, with regard to airbags, for which claim if any, is payable by OP No.2.
9.     Significantly, OP No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
10.     We also place our reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, upheld the order of the District Forum Chandigarh in First Appeal No.A/38/2017 (arisen out of order dated 12.1.2017 in CC/801/2015 of DF-I). Relevant para 6 is reproduced here below.

         “By placing reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.1014 of 2016 titled as Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Vs.Leela Shu & Anr. Contention of OP that sensors failed to act in deploying airbags at the time of the accident as the collision was not frontal, was rejected. As referred to above, we are satisfied that it was front side of the vehicle which was damaged in the accident. In that event, had there been no defect, sensors would have deployed the airbags. In view of the above, relief granted is perfectly justified.” 

11.     In view of the above discussion, it can safely be said that there was some manufacturing defect in the car. Hence, the act of OPs not providing proper services proves deficiency in services on their part and their indulgence in unfair trade practice
12.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.2 is directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.     The consumer complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14.     This order be complied with by the OP No.2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it will make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
16/05/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member